8 OCTOBER 2002

7:00 P.M.

  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.

  4. Members Present: Robert Coleman, Councilman Steve Galster,

    Richard Huddleston, David Okum, Councilman

    Tom Vanover Robert Sherry and Chairman


    Others Present: Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  6. Mr. Vanover moved to adopt and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted unanimously.

    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster reported that Council had the Public Hearing on the CVS Pharmacy PUD request and preliminary plan approval for that PUD and even though they brought in drawings different from the last we had seen in Planning, Council did pass a motion based on the Planning Commissionís recommendations and the submittal submitted to Planning last for approval 7-0.

    3. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Ė August 20, 2002
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė September 10, 2002
    5. Zoning Bulletin Ė September 25, 2002
    1. Approval of Revised Ground Sign, Springdale-Mason Pediatrics, 11350 Springfield Pike (previously approved 4/10/01)

Bill Marquet of Lackner Signs said I am here with Dr. Ron Rubin, and we are requesting a variance to what you previously approved for signage. The issue is the brick base that was approved originally. We would like to do away with that brick base and move forward with the sign as indicated on the drawing.

Mr. Syfert asked why they wished to do this. Mr. Marquet answered that the major issue is the cost difference between the two signs. Mr. Syfert responded what I am having a little trouble with in my own mind is why that wasnít a factor way back when. You have such a beautiful building there, and we thought we had a beautiful sign that would blend in with everything else, and now it has changed.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Two


Mr. Marquet answered I guess I should start at the beginning. When I met Dr. Rubin and we were talking about signage, I did not know that Planning had previously approved a brick based sign. We moved forward and came up with a couple of designs that he liked and thought it tied in well with the rest of the building. It was a conspicuous sign, but not overpowering to the area.

Dr. Rubin added that in the original drawings we gave to the City, the sign had never been priced to us. That was not a part of the original financing package for the building. In fact the general contractor was not even going to provide the sign for us. We contacted three sign contractors and chose Lackner. At that point because of the expense of the original plan, we could not afford an $8,000 or $9,000 sign. We chose to ask for this variance for something less expensive, eliminating the brick base and the additional woodwork that would have gone into the original sign

Mr. Galster asked if they had a sign up earlier. Dr. Rubin answered that they had a temporary sign of two vinyl banner signs on two 4 x 4 posts in front of the building, because we were told that we had to identify the building. The City gave us a summons on July 5th to remove the sign, that it was not acceptable. It was then taken down.

Subsequent to that we asked the City to allow us to provide a temporary sign because we service several hundred children a day in that building. They canít find us. We had submitted a drawing for another temporary sign and I believe Bill has the drawing for it. We were turned down on a second temporary sign. We were going to pay for that to at least have some means of identification.

We were also told that we could place a banner on the side of the building. Frankly we found that to be less attractive and we chose not to do that. We would have had to drill holes in our beautiful building and we didnít want to do that. There is no other means of placing a banner on the side of the building.

Mr. Galster said so the only sign that you had erected was a vinyl sign held up by two posts? Dr. Rubin responded it was the original finance sign and we covered it with a banner on each side. We had to take that down. Mr. Galster said I assume they took that down after it had been up for a certain period of time. Mr. McErlane reported that it was up for quite a while, and we held off on it thinking we would get the application in for the permanent sign shortly.

Ms. McBride said a sign that we approved on April 10, 2001 contained 35.75 s.f. of sign area per side and was 6í-10 Ĺ" tall. As the illustration indicates, it had both a brick base and a column on one end of the sign. It was to be internally illuminated and there was an approved landscaping plan that went around the base of that sign. The sign was to be located 32 feet from the State Route 4 right of way.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Three


Ms. McBride added that the sign before you this evening is reduced in area; it is 28.1 s.f. per side and is 6í in height. The construction is aluminum with vinyl copy on it. It is to be externally illuminated with ground lighting. The landscaping is of an unknown quantity, and the sign location is to be 15 feet from the State Route 4 right of way.

The Corridor Review District requires that all ground signage be supported by either a brick or stone base unless wood or metal is approved by Planning, so you do have the option of approving what the applicant is proposing in the aluminum base. However, an additional section of that same chapter requires that ground mounted signs be consistent with the materials color and style of the building. I would argue that the building is all brick and within keeping of the characteristics of the site, the sign should remain as originally approved by Planning.

We do allow for externally illuminated signage. However it has to use concealed cutoff fixtures with the maximum of .5 foot-candles surface illumination. We have asked for but have not received any additional information to confirm that the lighting proposed for the sign would comply with our requirements.

We also have a requirement within the Corridor Review District that says that the area the size of the face of the sign has to be contained within a landscaped area around the base of the sign. We asked for information about landscaping and we received a rendering type drawing of the sign with some landscape material around it. We need to know the size of the landscape area, the type of material, size of material, location of material, etc. before staff could make a recommendation with regards to the landscape plan.

The other signs we have recently approved along the Route 4 Corridor have all had brick or stone bases or supports for them, going back to the White Castle sign at the corner of Kemper and Springfield Pike, the Alterra facility directly adjacent to this property, and most recently the UDF signage for their redevelopment.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that they checked to verify that the new sign and location did not have any effect on the sight distance and the sight distance there is still satisfactory.

Mr. Galster said originally the sign submitted was a panel sign internally illuminated, usually painted. What you are proposing here is vinyl; what is it attached to? Mr. Marquet answered it is attached to the outside of the aluminum structure. Mr. Galster asked how long they expected the vinyl to last before it starts deteriorating, in color and in the edging? Mr. Marquet answered probably about 10 to 12 years. The manufacturersí warranty is for between 7 and 10 years against fading and cracking and rolling up. There are two different types of vinyls. One is the intermediate vinyl that is less expensive and used for banners.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Four


Mr. Galster said I am familiar with vinyls and do that as a hobby and even when you use the higher grade thinner material, over the course of time after three or four years there is discoloration and problems with the edges coming up. I believe that the overall aesthetics of the thing over the long course would be better served with the original sign. Would you agree with that?

Mr. Marquet answered yes and no. The vinyl graphics could have been painted on the second surface of the sign face. Trying to be cost effective, most companies would probably have used a white plexi glass face and put vinyl lettering directly on the face of that. I would like to have specked the painted on the back side of the plastic if I were specking an illuminated sign. Mr. Galster commented I believe this commission was expecting to see it painted for longevity and a clean sharp look for years to come.

Mr. Galster said we try to keep a residential look and feel to all the development that has happened on Route 4. We are looking for pitched roof, shingles and brick and stone. To me the sign is an extension of that. I think it is very important to keep that same look and that same feel, because we are trying to keep that as residential as we can. For aesthetics, for ease of maintenance, for the overall general feel in the corridor and in keeping with the residential look, I am much more in favor of the sign that was originally proposed.

Mr. Okum said I do not have a lot of preference for the cap that goes across the top of this versus the rounded space on the original sign. The rectangular versus the ellipse at the top didnít make a lot of difference to me for the number, but I do have to agree with Mr. Galster on the brick base and the column. I would not have a major problem with the setback request being closer than the original, since the engineer said that there is not a sight distance issue. I still would definitely feel that the brick base and the column are important. If you wanted to change the cap to a properly illuminated unit, I donít have a problem with it. I do have some problems if it is ground lit and the proper safeguards are not taken and it causes a glare for drivers or pedestrians. I donít have a problem if the box becomes rectangular rather than an extrusion that you have to do something special with the aluminum, a cost issue.

Mr. Huddleston said the color at the base and the top is indicated as tan; what is the sign panel color? Mr. Marquet answered that it is also a lighter tan. He showed a color rendering.

Mr. Syfert said at the beginning of this issue, I expressed my own opinion that I thought what we had originally approved was what I wanted to see down through there, and I donít believe I will change my opinion on that, so I will not be in support of any change to the original sign.

Mr. Galster asked if there was limestone used in the building. Dr. Rubin answered it is all brick and drivitt.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Five


Mr. Marquet said I notice that the Alterra sign has a stucco surround around that sign, not quite a brick base like some of the others in the area. We actually have a material that we can use and create an aluminum base for the sign and use that material on top of the aluminum to give it a stucco or drivitt finish that would more closely match the building and give it more of that earthy feel. That might be a possible option for changing that base from brick to something like this and paint it in a deeper earthtone color.

Mr. Syfert wondered if the brick base was that much more expensive. Dr. Rubin reported that the cost differential is $1,600. Using Alterra as a reference, it may be a brick base, but there is landscaping all around that and it is not visible any more. We want to create a landscape plan that Planning Commission can approve. I will tell you that the colors that were chosen on our design do match the colors of the trim on the building, so there is a consistency there.

I know you want the original design as it was proposed. I assume that means interior lighted which was the original plan. I am asking the Commission to consider to allow us to use exterior lighting and a brick base without the additional column, because that probably would add another $850 to the cost for the mason and materials.

Mr. Galster said I agree with you that part of the brick base does get covered by landscaping. That is why a lot of the designs that we have approved lately have some side structures to them that continue that brick feel. We are trying to bring that brick around and surround the sign, rather than having a cabinet on top of a brick base. Considering the long period of time and the investment that you have in the building, it seems to me that the financial considerations donít seem that great. Money is money, but for the overall aesthetics of it, those monies would be well spent on that site.

Dr. Rubin said I have another request. In the interim, we need to have something out on Springfield Pike. We need you to approve a temporary sign. We are desperate; we have had mothers who have had sick children running up and down Springfield Pike and canít find us. All we have to identify us are the numbers on the front door, which faces north, not Springfield Pike. Lackner has provided Mr. McErlane with a design concept for a temporary sign. AT this stage we probably are looking at another two or three months before we can get the permanent sign done.

Mr. Syfert said I think we might be receptive to something like that. Mr. Okum asked what the time frame is for getting the final sign together. Mr. Marquet answered probably about four to five weeks. Mr. McErlane showed a copy of the temporary sign drawing. Mr. Okum said so this request is for a 62" x 36" temporary sign to be two to three feet off the ground. Mr. Marquet added it was close to the size there previously.

Mr. Galster said I have no problem with that on a temporary basis. I go to both the pediatrics and dentist there and if I hadnít known that it had moved, I would have had a hard time finding it.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Six


Mr. Galster added so I agree with the need to have that and I have no problem with some type of time frame to allow you to get the permanent sign constructed.

Mr. Coleman asked the estimated cost of the temporary sign, and Dr. Rubin answered it is $531, plus $1,600 for the permanent brick sign because weíll have to do both. The estimate was for the rectangular brick around the base with no column included. If we have to go to the original design, I expect it will be somewhat more costly than the proposal we have now. Mr. Marquet said the $1600 is for just a brick base; it doesnít include the column up the side.

Mr. Okum moved to give the applicant 60 days to place a temporary sign, 62" x 36" as presented to allow them time to get the permanent sign placed. Mr. Marquet asked for more than 60 days. If we are going to change the sign design, we have to go back through our design process and get back to Springdale. I can only speak for our time frame; I canít speak for the mason who will do the brick work. Mr. Okum amended the motion to 90 days and Mr. Huddleston seconded the amended motion. All voted aye, and the motion was passed unanimously.

Mr. Okum said I do not have a problem with the panel face being changed to the aluminum cabinet with permanent letters on it and external lighting. That is an approved use for the corridor, provided it is on a brick base. I do not want to back down from the original submission for the column and brick base. I feel that is necessary to be consistent with what we originally approved. If the applicant wishes to change the cabinet to a square or rectangular box, versus a box with an ellipse on the top, I do not have a problem with that.

My motion would be to allow the applicant a little flexibility on the cabinet, to eliminate the ellipse on the top, but the brick base and column and landscaping approval by staff would have to be part of my motion.

Mr. Sherry said I know cost is an issue. It appeared to me that the original brick base was two foot wide. Maybe they can narrow it down. The case is 12". Mr. Okum said it is not going to make any difference in cost; it wonít make a big difference. And, cost shouldnít be a driving factor. I think we should give the applicant latitude on how that face is treated. Mr. Sherry said I agree with that.

Mr. Huddleston moved to approve the request based on the original brick base, including Mr. Okumís suggestion that the rectangular box cabinet would be okay and eliminate the ellipse at the top, subject to landscaping approval by the staff, and the applicant has the option to do either internal or external lighting, also to be approved by the staff. Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

All voted aye except Mr. Syfert who voted no, and approval was granted with six affirmative and one negative vote.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Seven

B. Approval of Revised Final Site Development Plan, Pappadeaux Restaurant, 11975 Northwest Boulevard (previously approved 9/11/01)

David Richards of Pappas Restaurants reported we received approval about a year ago, and we are back to get reapproved to some adjustments we made to the site and building.

We have pulled the building back about 80 feet, which lines the existing entrance to the property with the front door, giving us circulation right at our entrance. Also it added a circulation area in front of the building at a parking and a drive, and also adding an additional access point by Bahama Breeze. We did this because we thought it would be important to be able to see the front door as you pull in and to create a dramatic entrance at the front of the building. Also it increased the circulation of the Pictoria people coming through Bahama Breeze and being able to access our parking lot. It also gave us parking spaces in front of the building so that from the freeway the building looked like there were people in it, which is important to a restaurant.

On the building, we actually flipped elevations. We did that because we wanted all of our glass to look over the water for a nicer view rather than looking at the back side of Karloís. It also gives a stronger elevation on the freeway side.

We have removed the patio and added a lounge. We did that because we could use the lounge 365 days a year. That patio became a waste of money, so we enclosed it and made a lounge so that the people waiting will be in an enclosed space and be comfortable.

Mr. McErlane reported that Planning Commission approved this 9/11/01. At the time of submittal, we hadnít received the correct ownerís affidavit for the property, and today we received the original for that. The ground sign details were not resubmitted, so we assume that the ground sign will be as approved last year.

The changes to the building elevation are a flip of the north and south elevations and the east and west elevations are a mirror image of what they were previously. The square footage of the building had changed slightly. The previously approved plan included 13,332 s.f. The total building area for this application is 12,864 s.f. The patio seating area has been deleted. The public area of the restaurant has decreased by 273 s.f., and the total number of parking spaces on site has decreased from 196 to 178.

Landscape and open spaces have increased from the 17% shown on the previous plan to 23%. At the time the plan was approved in September of last year, the southern property line wasnít clearly defined in the lake. The plan approved in September had property lines that paralleled the building face offset by about 15 feet. Since that time, Planning Commission approved a plat of properties, and the current plat is reflected on the site plan today. Previously the lot size was 2.662 acres and now it is 2.748 acres. Without any increase in impervious surfaces, that increased the landscaped and open areas to 23.1%.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Eight


Mr. McErlane added that the building setbacks all meet code. The front yard setback to parking is shown at 9 feet and 10 feet is permitted. The previous plan was approved at 11 feet. The rear yard setback to parking is required to be 10 feet. The previous plan showed 10 feet and the current plan shows 1.6 feet. The side yard parking setback is required to be 10 feet. The previous plan showed 5 feet and the current plan shows 5 feet. The side yard south parking setback is required to be 10 feet. The previous plan showed 11 feet and at that time the parking wasnít adjacent to that south line because the building was there. This plan shows approximately 25 feet.

The building signs on the previous plan totaled 299.1 s.f. Planning Commission approved a 100 s.f. panel on a pylon sign. The required parking spaces are 207, which relates to the 178 spaces shown on the plan. There are six handicap spaces required and seven are shown.

There was a pre existing tree replacement requirement on the properties that was created at the time the subdivision was developed. Those trees were removed to accommodate grading of some of the sites as well as formation of the detention basins. Hardwoods required for this property total 127 inches. The landscape plan came in late and I was out of town, but I understand it meets our requirements now.

Mr. Richards said he talked to their landscape architect today, and she left all the evergreens as existing in the latest plan. What we were short was one hardwood tree. The difference was two or three inches, and she has added four or five more hardwood trees, so it should exceed the requirement.

Mr. McErlane added that the 124 inches I indicated on my plan included crabapples, which are really ornamentals. On prior applications, what we have done has been to give credit for at least the evergreen varieties and sometimes also the ornamentals. This is primarily because you donít find them natural in our habitat, particularly the evergreens. It looks like with that total, they will be far in excess of the tree replanting requirements.

Ms. McBride said the applicant has indicated that the amount of open space has increased from 17.5% that we originally approved to 23.1%. Staff has asked that the applicant indicate by shading where on the site plan that 23.1% (almost ľ of the site that is open space) it is located. We are not questioning their numbers; we would just like to see where it is.

The second item has to do with parking, and it is an update for the Planning Commission and so that the developers of Pictoria Island are put on notice in that with this development, there will be two extra parking spaces remaining in that garage. All the rest have been used up by the office building and by the excess required by the additional restaurants. We still have one more outlot restaurant pad and that site will have to stand on its own regarding parking.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Nine


Ms. McBride said on the additional access point, you will recall that originally we wanted to see an access point in or about that location, and the applicant had some concerns about cross parking between the two restaurants. They have since decided that the access point would be a good point for both their restaurant and Bahama Breeze. Staff doesnít disagree with that, but before we can act on that, we need to have the signed documentation from the owners of Bahama Breeze in the form of the ownerís affidavit and the application form, as well as a revised landscape plan for them, because they will lose one of their parking spaces.

They will have to relocate a portion of their guard rail as well as landscape material. There also may or may not be a change in the impervious surface calculations for the Bahama Breeze site. We will need to see that information, so the commission cannot act on that portion of the plan this evening.

We had concerns about the appearance of the retaining wall. The retaining wall was always going to be in that place, but there was a deck that was cantilevered out over that retaining wall. Now that the deck is gone, we do have some concern about what that whole backing will look like as you come off I-275.

We also had questions about the railing detail or guard rail detail or whatever was going to be proposed for the edge of the lake. We met with the applicant earlier today and I think they have cleared that up.

We have asked that bumper blocks be located in all the parking spaces that are either adjacent to this retaining wall or its railing or any of the sidewalk areas or any of the landscaped areas to prevent any damage to any of the materials that I have just mentioned.

Concerning the waste enclosure, the submittal indicated that the lower half would be painted masonry block and the upper half would be brick veneer. Staff would prefer to see all of that enclosure brick veneer. Mr. Richards said it is all brick except for the bottom two feet, which is actually the foundation of that brick wall.

Ms. McBride continued that the drawings indicate that there will be metal gates on the other elevation of the dumpster enclosure, and we would like to see their color and whether they would be vinyl coated or painted or whatever.

We had asked for additional information on the turning radii for the truck that would be servicing the dumpster and it indicates a three point turn to get in there. I wouldnít want to have my car parked across from there, but they assured me that the dumpster is usually serviced at 8 in the morning. If that is the case, staff doesnít have a problem with that.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Ten


Ms. McBride said that we had questions regarding the screening of the mechanical equipment. They did provide a detail, but we couldnít understand it. It appears on the building elevations as a wooden fence screen. The detail indicates that it is a picket fence, and we had a concern as to what the dimension would be between the pickets. We would like to get the detail that matches the

building elevations. What is indicated on the building elevations is acceptable, but we need to have the detail that matches it.

We have asked them to extend the pavers on the east side of the property to connect to the pedestrian access from the Pictoria Tower garage, and they have done that. With 14% of their parking spaces located in the parking garage, it is important that we get them safely over to the restaurant.

The applicant is proposing a combination of light fixtures. The one is the 400-watt high-pressure sodium fixture that is mounted on a 30-foot pole bronze in color. That is the standard Pictoria Island fixture that this commission has seen on all the other developments thus far.

They also are proposing on the southern and eastern portions of the site to use a 50-watt metal halide fixture, which is to be mounted on an 11-foot pole dark bronze in color. Until this afternoon, staff didnít have any details on what the fixture was to look like, but it is to be a carriage light type fixture. It is my understanding that it can also be a high-pressure sodium, and I would think that the commission would want to see that as all one light type rather than a mixture of light types. Consistency in lighting was a concern of the commission when we started looking at the Pictoria Island PUD.

There also is a concern regarding the decrease in the overall lighting on the site itself. They decreased it from 5.89 to 4.15 foot candles, but the problem is that there are significant areas in the photometric plan submitted that go below our .5 foot candles, down to .1. I donít think that is the applicantís intent; I think there is a problem with their photometric plan, but the Commission wouldnít want to approve it as it is today since it doesnít comply with the Code.

In the staff report sent to your homes on Friday, my comments were on the landscape plan that was previously submitted, because the landscape plan was submitted late. Unfortunately just this evening I was able to give you the memo concerning the comments that are still outstanding in that landscape plan, and I will read them.

We still donít have a north arrow on the landscape plan. Mulch beds need to surround the trees where there is less than 24 inches from the edge of the mulch bed. Parking blocks need to be on all the spaces that are head into the landscaping areas. We still feel that landscaping needs to be provided on the north, southeast corner and south perimeter of the parking lot. There are pine trees

proposed against Karloís, but there are still a lot of blank areas.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Eleven


Ms. McBride added that our code requires a continuous hedge so we would want to see other material added to those areas.

We want to make sure that the plant material proposed at those access drives does not impede sight lines when you are exiting the driveways.

There is a glitch in their landscape plan overlay system, because we still have plant material being located in the walkway to the parking lot. It all has to be in the landscaped beds.

We would like to see some additional plant material added to the north elevation of the building. It just doesnít match what we had approved previously, and what is on the other elevations of the building.

There has been no change to either the ground-mounted sign or the two proposed on building signs. The applicant now indicated that there was no change to the proposed building elevations and that may be their intent, but the plans that came to the city do vary from what the city originally approved.

Specifically, the commission had a lot of discussion regarding the chain link metal security cage that was to be on the west elevation of the building. That was omitted as a part of this commissionís approval, and that showed up on the elevations that we received, and needs to be removed from any approval that the commission may have.

The seating area with maroon canvas awnings are now located on the north elevation. It was staffís interpretation that there was spandrel glass in that location previously. There are dashed lines on our previously approved building elevation. They are not called out as canopies or awnings. The applicant indicates that was their intent all along so the commission needs to consider that.

On the south elevation, we approved a building elevation that had a copper metal roof. What was submitted now has an asphalt shingled roof on the south elevation, so that needs to go back to what we previously approved.

The east building elevation previously contained five brick columns. That has been reduced to four and probably has something to do with the reconfiguration of the building. Not all of the building materials have been identified on the elevations that were submitted.

Mr. Okum said the applicant submitted a drawing of the seating area with a canvas roof. Mr. Richards said that is a maroon canvas awning; it was always intended to be there. That is the original rendering. It is an area of the patio that was going to be covered.

Mr. Okum commented I looked at the same drawings from the original submission, and it wasnít identified as an awning at all. We do need to resolve that.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Twelve


Mr. Okum said that fireplace stack and the other stack on the other side will need to be screened either into masonry or be a masonry chimney or enclosed.

My one big concern is this exposed wall. I very specifically addressed the issue of the exposed pilasters, the supports for the deck and how they would be impacted and be exposed. We had a discussion about carrying the masonry down to the water level. We discussed those as being a major exposure to the building, and how that would be perceived by people driving along the interstate and coming off that exit ramp. Now we are talking a five-foot high 370+ foot long block wall across that lake, and from that distance, that is all it becomes. Although some of the changes you propose to make to your building are an enhancement, I think this is a major distraction and is definitely an elevation that we will have to deal with.

Mr. Richards said understand that it is a natural stone retaining modular block that we have used in a lot of places. I donít think it is going to look like a CMU wall. I have a cut sheet if you wish to look at it. Mr. Okum responded we have one of the blocks, and I have a pretty good idea of what that modular system looks like. I have seen it on a good number of developments. It certainly takes away from the effect that we had.

Mr. Richards asked what he would rather see, and Mr. Okum answered natural stone, brick like the building is with some columns or something to break it up. I would like to see something other than CMU. It really truly is an elevation of your site.

Mr. Richards said I understand that. I have four other sites; in fact this site has a 22-foot wall around it, which we find a good-looking wall. If it offends the staff,..Mr. Okum said I understand and I would like to work through that part of it because I think that is a major elevation. I think we can deal with the copper color canvas canopy over the dining area. It is something that wasnít identified on the original drawings or we would have addressed it.

Mr. Richards said if that wall became a concrete wall with fake limestone facing on it, would that be acceptable? Mr. Okum said if staff could get a cut sheet on it and it would be approved, I donít have a problem with it, something limestone looking, sandstone or something of that nature would help a lot. It will need breaks in it because it is what everybody is going to see. I was even concerned about the rail that goes across, and you and staff worked that out. Mr. Richards said it is a decorative rail that we use around our buildings. Mr. Okum asked if the engineer would require a guardrail, and Mr. Richards answered that it will be considered a guardrail. We use it as a guard rail system at our other restaurants. Weíll supply the engineered drawings to show that it will meet that force. Mr. Okum said when I think of a guardrail I think of traffic and a vehicle. Mr. Richards responded with a curb as high as it is (11-12 inches), a car will not go over it. It will stop the car.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Thirteen


Mr. Richards added that is what we talked about last time and what was approved. We can work out the details with staff. Mr. Okum added I donít want to see a galvanized Department of Transportation guard rail. Mr. Richards responded it is painted black with detailing on it.

Mr. Okum said if you could answer Ms. McBrideís comments, we would appreciate it. Mr. Richards said we met with Ms. McBride earlier and I think we worked out a number of them, but we can go back over them.

Mr. Shvegzda said on the retaining wall, the applicant has literature from the manufacturer, and I wonder if he wants to make that available to the commission to look at. Mr. Richards passed it around.

Mr. Richards said that chain link metal security cage that you didnít approve last time ended up on the drawing and that was a mistake. Itís not going to be there.

The maroon canvas awnings have been added to the north elevation; it is the roof of that building and is for the looks of the building. We looked at the famous French restaurant Maximís, and used that to give it an elegant French bistro feel. That is why we are using dark wood and the dark maroon color awning. It wonít look like a Pizza Hut or something like that; it is made to be really elegant looking.

The copper roofing is still copper; it was just a mistake in the drawings.

The original east building elevations contained five brick columns; these have been reduced to four because when we flipped the building it shortened the length of that walkway.

Not all of the building materials have been identified; we can go over any of the materials that have not been. Except for the maroon, we havenít changed any materials at all. He showed the color of everything on the building, the deep brown almost mahogany color, and the slate roof with tile at the edges.

Mr. Richards reported concerning the access point with Bahama Breeze, the developer has sent it on to Bahama Breeze to write an approval letter. If they decided they didnít want to approve an access point, the site point would remain the same and the drive would go away and there would be additional parking spaces.

On the dumpster enclosure, if need be we will bring the brick all the way down to the ground.

Mr. Sherry said the parking has been decreased by 18 spaces. Will it be picked up in the garage, and do they have permission from the garage owners? Ms. McBride answered the City owns that garage, and they agreed that there would be directional signage that would say additional parking available in Tower I Garage with an arrow.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Fourteen


Ms. McBride said we have encouraged them to ask employees to park over there. What we have done is kept a close accounting of the number of spaces in that garage, and there are only two spaces left for the last restaurant coming in.

Mr. Richards said if they build Pictoria Island II and there is a garage associated with that, and the garage is within 250 feet of Pictoria Island I, can some of the parking from Pictoria Island I go into the second parking garage? Ms. McBride responded we would have to look at that if it came about. The question would be how far people would be willing to park to walk to a restaurant.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that due to the drop off and the permanent body of water in the detention basin, both a guardrail and handrail would be required. The applicant has indicated that what they have on the plans would fulfill the requirements of both a barrier for vehicular traffic and pedestrian safety. We would need more information on its ability to provide the vehicular safety.

In addition the applicant had mentioned the issue of the curb being 11 inches in height. That is not what was indicated on the site plan, but if that would be added to that it would be a better situation.

If that retaining wall system is utilized, it has horizontal reinforcement that goes back into the ground. The question was how the foundations for the lighting there would interact with that, because it is in the area between the back of curb and the retaining wall. This needs to be clarified.

On the turning analysis, the applicant submitted a drawing noting a fire apparatus and how it would circulate through the parking lot. The applicant has talked with the Fire Department, and the one that they utilize in the turning analysis is larger than what the Fire Department considers to be necessary, so it is probably acceptable the way it is submitted. We would request that the applicant resubmit that turning radius drawing for the fire apparatus.

Another drawing for turning movements was submitted regarding delivery vehicle. It was a 40-foot semi truck and in later discussions with the applicant, it was indicated that a single unit box truck is the delivery vehicle, so that will need to be submitted to verify that it will be able to circulate through the parking lot.

On the dumpster enclosure, there was a question about the angle of approach, but the applicant indicates that it has been successfully utilized in other sites.

We need to clarify what type of curb was utilized in certain locations and the applicant will clarify that on the plans. There was a detail indicating the drive apron onto Northwest Boulevard, in the cul de sac area. It now has been clarified that the existing drive apron is going to be utilized there. The curb will drop down to zero inches in height.

On the wall area the drawings indicated two storm sewer outlet points within the wall, one 18 inches and one 12 inches in diameter.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Fifteen


Mr. Shvegzda added that the detail for the winged wall arrangement indicated 4 Ĺ foot long concrete wing walls. WE have discussed that with the applicant, and they have indicated that they now can combine those particular discharge points and tie it into an existing storm sewer that is to the east of the site. Our recommendation is that any motion to approve the site be based on that relocation of the storm sewer.

There is a revision of the access easement to maintain the detention basin. We need more information on the grading of the area where it accesses the pond to make sure that it is somewhat accessible for maintenance activities.

Mr. Galster said I want to look at the retaining wall and what you would consider the curb for the parking lot in one. Right now we have the pond that has the stone around it, and weíre going to put a retaining wall that is about four to five feet and behind that we have a curb in the parking lot that is almost 12 inches high, and a fence on top of that. So from the street weíll see the rock, five foot of wall, and 12 inches of wall. Mr. Richards said actually the retaining wall would come up to the same height as the curb, so you will only see the retaining wall and then you will see the decorative fence on top of it.

Mr. Galster so we are adding a foot of height to the retaining wall to cover the look of that and use as a car stop. It seems to me that as much wall as we have there between the stone and the wall and everything else, we would drop that down. I would rather see a tubular black guardrail like we have used in the past at 747 and Kemper. My point is that in order to have the car stop, we have raised that retaining wall another foot.

Mr. Richards asked if he had a typical guardrail detail; is this what you want? Mr. Shvegzda responded if that is the information we sent over, that is the detail for that. Mr. Galster said this is a black painted tube guardrail system. Instead of adding the 12 inches to the retaining wall, letís drop it down and put a decorative guardrail in just to get rid of some of that wall height.

Mr. Galster said on the detail for the retaining wall, Mr. Okum had mentioned some system. Mr. Okum said the architectural wall similar to what the applicant has submitted is like this, and I think this is pretty close to what we are going to see there that concerns me. In some areas we would see about three feet of stone or gravel and in other areas, Section LS 1 shows a water line along the lake in some areas of probably 20 feet of gravel that would be exposed on a slope, then the wall and then the guard rail. Iím a little concerned that the guardrail that the city used on Kemper and 747 is fairly massive and it may appear even larger from the expressway than the architectural railing that they suggest. On the other hand, I have the same concern that you do. You bring the wall up to six feet high; I am having a problem with the wall period, and then weíre talking about doing that.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Sixteen


Mr. Okum said basically we would have a void before you see the building. Typically if we have something like that, there is some type of landscape material or some canopy material over the top of the wall or the wall gets broken up with piers. We are talking about a wall that is more than 300 feet which is almost perfectly straight.

Rick Horn of Woolpert said currently there is stone-faced material around the detention basin. The wall would replace the stone material, and the water would fall just short of the retaining wall.

Mr. Okum commented I am looking at your water line on this landscape drawing; is that an accurate representation of where the water line is? Mr. Horn responded it is fairly accurate. Mr. Okum continued if you look towards the east of the site, there must be 20-25 feet of water that will shift towards that wall horizontally. I donít see how that can happen, unless you dig it out there and allow that water to flow against the wall.

Mr. Horn said I appreciate the comments you are making because they make a lot of sense. The issue of the wall material type is what we need to compromise on, but I want to pass a drawing around that shows several sections cut through the wall. I think that will clarify the question as to do we really want to raise this wall a foot; I donít think we do. I donít think that is a good thing.

Do we want to put an 11-inch curb along the edge of the parking lot? I think we may want to do that, and that would be our replacement for the guardrail. A car wouldnít mount an 11-inch curb.

What we show here is a decorative handrail along the top of the wall. It could be on the top of the wall or it could be a couple of feet behind it. In the elevation, we show a grass area that rises that extra foot to the curb. In this case it probably would be two extra feet to get to the top of an 11-inch curb.

Mr. Galster said so we would never see the actual 12-inch curb that you are talking about.

Mr. Horn responded the aesthetics of it would be that the high water level of the detention pond would be at the base of the wall. From the road, unless you are in a SUV or something like that, you would never see the top of the water anyway. If you are in a regular car, your sight line is at the top of the berm looking into the channel lighting. That rock would be gone, because we would have the wall almost at the water line. The issue is what type of wall it would be. Would it be a modular block retaining wall as proposed or would it be some different type of material, a structural retaining wall with a facing on it? The facing material could be imbedded into the wall if you want to look at that.

Mr. Galster asked if the retaining wall had to be a straight up wall or could it be built into tiers. You might have to come into the pond a little more, but could there be little tiers where landscaping could be placed to break it up?

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Seventeen


Mr. Richards responded we could plant some vines to grow down over the wall, because tit needs to be a continuous face for the modular brickwork. If we moved it out into the water to do what you are saying, we donít have any property out there. And, the problem is that we move it out into the water, it displaces one of the detention ponds.

Mr. Horn added that the tiering would create a maintenance problem. If you have an open space in a tiered wall, how do you mow it to maintain it? It usually is not a good idea to put tiers in, especially modular block walls. Another reason is that it has the geo grid material to go behind it and is the actual structural part of the wall.

If the Planning Commission has a problem with the material of the wall, then we need to clarify that issue. When we come back in to develop the lot, you might see a foot of the stone because it does go below the water line. You can see the decorative handrail, but behind the decorative handrail would be a foot of elevation., If we put the 11-inch curb in, we would have two foot of elevation that would be landscaped or grassed and you would see that from the road.

Mr. Okum said on the section drawing it shows high water level, but it doesnít show the low water level. What is that? Mr. Horn answered that the current elevation is 693 feet. Youíll see two foot of the gravel vertical and 2í-6" angular.

Mr. Okum said you still have the wall, which we need to deal with. There is a drawing that shows some break in the wall; they changed the material and put a couple of diamonds in it. That helps at least, but right now we havenít seen what we are going to get. Mr. Richards said right now you are going to get a wall.

Mr. Sherry said I want to make sure that the low water elevation is 693. It appeared to me looking at the grading plan that it was 689. Mr. Horn said the bottom elevation of the pond is 689 and the low water elevation is 693 so there is four feet of water in the pond. But then there is two feet of detention on top of that, at the edge.

Mr. Huddleston said I donít want to design projects instead of approving them, but I would prefer to see the modular loose laid wall rather than a rigid wall at that location. I think it would hold up better over time. Having said that, I donít like the design, so I would agree with the concept of using the modular units and if we can make them decorative in some fashion that would be preferable.

Mr. Okum said these cut sheets are showing the sections. Where are the cuts at on the wall system, A B and C? If I am looking at LS-1, the water line is shown at 20 feet back from there. I donít see that represented in Cut C. I donít have the topo showing where the water line runs along the site.

Mr. Horn said the landscape plan is not accurate in terms of the water line. You need to refer to the civil engineer drawings that show the surveys.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Eighteen


Mr. Okum said even if you look at the retaining wall plan on EX 1 it shows that water line. C 300 is the grading plan; where does the water go to? I donít see the water going to one foot or two-foot from this wall all the way along this property line.

Mr. Horn said this goes back to Mr. Sherryís question as to what is 689 on the plan. That is what the landscape architect used for the water line and in actuality it is 693. So it goes along the base of the wall.

Mr. Okum said Mr. Shvegzda has given us a larger set of the C 300 drawings and it shows the 693 point darkened. The dark line is where the water is normally, which follows the 693 contour. So there is a distance from that wall of at least 10 feet. The normal water line is at least 20 feet back from the wall. Right dead center you are correct; the water will probably come up within one foot of the wall.

Mr. Okum said I donít want to see rock running up to a vertical wall running to a railing; that becomes stark. Mr. Horn said we could overexcavate the pond. We would have to bring down the water line and do a footing for the wall. Mr. Okum said at least then we are talking about the wall issue and dealing with the finish on the wall and not the stone at the bottom.

Now letís deal with the wall finish and how it looks. I have to agree with Mr. Huddlestonís comments regarding a rigid surface versus a wall that can evolve and move. If they put synthetic stone on it, it would tend to want to peel off by movement of the wall or cracks. I donít know the right finish, but I know it will need something to break it up. We donít know color tones. Is it the brown or red or tan? Mr. Galster said I donít know that you shouldnít try to match the stone that is around the sign.

Mr. Okum said there was an accent on the back of the flyer that showed some break in that with the line and coping. Mr. Richards said we could do that. Mr. Syfert said bring that line across and put a big p in the middle of it. Mr. Richards said if running two or three lines on that wall in an accenting color would help, we could do that. Mr. Okum said it needs something; it would help from being a stark concrete block looking wall. What I am saying is you take the elevation and put the wall in context to that elevation so we know how it will look along the front of your property.

Mr. Vanover asked what the vertical elements are that are sticking up, and Mr. Okum said they are stack pipes. Couldnít they be pushed back behind the enclosure? Mr. Richards said the enclosure could come out around the screen. Mr. Okum commented that side did not make that much difference when it was on the other side of the building, but now it is the main side. And you feel that the wood sided look on the west is a strong enough statement? Mr. Richards indicated that he did.

Mr. McErlane said I have a question about the other stack. This one is for boilers for dishwashing and that type of thing. What is the other stack for?

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Nineteen


Mr. Richards answered I am trying to remember what it is. The only thing I can think of is that it would be for the secondary hot water tank. Mr. McErlane reported that the floor plan indicates public rest rooms on that side as well as a dry storage room. Mr. Richards added it also shows an electric room and a boiler room. Mr. McErlane said it only shows on the west elevation. Mr. Richards said the boiler has been relocated to the opposite side of the building. Weíre still going to have to screen it somehow.

Mr. McErlane said I need to get a clarification. The proposal was to use a fencing material for a guardrail at the top of the retaining wall. We were talking about the tubular guardrail similar to what we used on Kemper Road, and then there was discussion about a12 inch curb.

The terminology is different depending on whether you are talking about ODOT requirements or the Building Code. The Building Code looks at a guardrail from the standpoint of people falling over something. Iím not sure that was the intent of the fence.

Mr. Richards responded that the intent of the fence is to keep people from falling into the water. The raising of the curb is to keep cars from driving into it.

Mr. McErlane responded so we are talking about a combination of the two. The Building Code doesnít necessarily require that fence to be there. Even though it seems unrealistic, it says that driving areas and walking areas within two feet of that difference in elevation require a guardrail, and I think we are five feet off it.

Mr. Okum asked the color of the awning, and Mr. Richards reported that it is burgundy, non-translucent.

Mr. Okum wondered if the applicant would need to come in for a final approval, and Mr. Richards indicated that this is final. Mr. Okum said you have worked out issues on the lights, and Mr. Richards said no,. There is a big mess-up in the lighting plan. We usually keep five lumens across the whole parking lot. Evidently something got deleted on that lighting plan that made it so dark on that one side of the building. Weíll maintain five lumens there.

Mr. Okum said on those carriage lights, will you go to the sodium? Mr. Richards answered yes, on that side of the building we would have to. We would put the standard Pictoria fixture on that side which would raise the lumens to five on that side, and we would maintain the decorative lighting where we have shown it. Mr. Okum asked if they would use the same type of bulb, sodium vapor. Mr. Richards answered yes, as has been approved for Pictoria. Mr. Okum asked if the carriage light bulbs are exposed and Mr. Richards said yes, like a gaslight. Mr. Okum asked if they were fairly bright, and Mr. Richards said no, they are decorative fixtures. It will be more like landscape lighting. Mr. Okum said so we are not finished with the lighting, and you will have to finalize it, correct? Mr. Richards said we would like to have your final approval and get staff approval on the final lighting plan.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Twenty


Mr. Okum said I am not final on the wall yet. I need to see something. So you want to go through Planning and we resolve the wall issue with the final submission. Mr. Richards said as long as we are still talking about a modular block, I will come back in a month and show you an elevation of the modular block with a line or whatever, a decorative modular block with that elevation and get your approval on it.

Mr. Okum asked if staff wanted the landscape architect to look at the grassy area that separates that, that they are showing at the top? Ms. McBride responded she has long raised the issue of what they are going to plant in there. We held that off not knowing what the guardrail/handrail/fence would be.

Going back to the lighting, staff also had some concerns. There are a number of double-headed fixtures that they are proposing in areas that we donít feel are necessarily warranted. So it is more than just a glitch on the photometric plan when they were preparing it, and they need to revise some fixtures. I want to make sure that everybody is clear about that.

Mr. Okum said so lighting shall be reviewed and approved by staff would be okay?

Mr. Galster said we have done a lot of work on this tonight, but it seems like there are still a lot of unresolved issues that need clarification. Is there any reason to not table this and bring it back in next month and try to get it all done?

Mr. Richards responded if we have to come back another month, we will be starting the project in April rather than hopefully starting it real soon.

Mr. Galster commented so the amount of work you would get done between now and a month from now would be site work. Mr. Galster said you wonít have approval on the wall tonight anyway.

Mr. Richards responded I thought we were talking about getting approval tonight on the modular block system.

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone had a problem with the modular system. Mr. Galster said I donít know what it would look like. Mr. Syfert responded I donít think any of us know what it will look like yet. Mr. Galster answered to say I donít have a problem with it, until I see what it will look like on that side, I donít know. It seems like that is what needs to be done to get the elevation that they need. According to our engineer and our planning people, that seems like the best way to do it, so in general I donít have a problem with it. I still would like to see it, but I still would like to see it.

Mr. Richards responded I have no problem with conditionally having to come back for approval on the look of the wall. Iíll do that; I can see you are not comfortable with it.

Mr. Okum said even though you have said that the canopy is burgundy, that needs to be added to our color pallet.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Twenty-One


Mr. Okum said I donít recall that awning being there in color form. Mr. McErlane added that the only color rendering I recall is this one. Mr. Richards added it was the one we gave you a materials board, and the canopy was not on it. Mr. Okum commented then we do need that. We obviously need the modular block and that color presentation. The lighting issues will be resolved with staff. We need a demonstration on how the mechanical units are going to be enclosed, especially that big stack, is critical. Those voids in the drawings where they are different need to be finalized so we can get on with it and you can get your building built.

Mr. Coleman added that the point was made earlier regarding landscaping and sign documentation. That would need to be included. Ms. McBride added that the comment concerning signage was that Mr. McErlane had indicated that we had not received the detail of the ground-mounted sign. Even though it was represented, it was not going to change.

Our office received this about 3:45 this afternoon, and I did not have a chance to look at it. They have represented that it has not changed, and we would want to double-check that. . The landscape plan will have to be modified to meet the requirements and conditions that we put forth.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane said if you get a partial approval this month, you indicated site work. Based on the proposed grading, there doesnít look like there is a whole lot of grading occurring, other than in the area of the modular retaining wall. Mr. Richards answered that there is a lot of dig out that we have to do underneath the property, because evidently the soil in that area is not quality material.

Mr. McErlane wondered if that was a part of the reason for the moving of the building, and Mr. Richards answered that was the reason. We were out there with a backhoe six months ago digging holes. Weíre not sure what happened there, but the quality of the dirt is not acceptable for our structure.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the final plan submission for Pappas Restaurant Inc. with the following conditions:

    1. It shall include all staff, City Engineer and City Plannerís recommendations;
    2. The mechanical units and stacks shall be in staff and Planning Commissionís approved enclosure;
    3. All lighting shall maintain a minimum of .5 foot candles;
    4. Lighting plans shall be reviewed and approved by staff;
    5. Light fixtures, pole color and bulbs shall be consistent with Pictoria Island development;
    6. Landscaping conditions shall be approved by staff;
    7. Tree preservation conditions must be equal to or exceed the requirement on the site;
    8. Dumpster and refuse enclosure shall include painted gate on the enclosure;
    9. Parking/site plan conditions are to include 29 spaces to be shared with Pictoria Island Tower garage;
    10. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

      8 October 2002

      Page Twenty-Two


    11. Color pallet shall be updated and approved by Planning Commission at a future meeting;
    12. Signage conditions shall be as approved in the original submission;
    13. Awning canopy over the new enclosed space shall be burgundy non translucent in color and color to be approved with final color pallet to be submitted to Planning Commission;
    14. Retaining wall along the lake shall be approved later by Planning Commission;
    15. Fences over the enclosing mechanical unit shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Commission;
    16. Retaining wall shall have integral landscaping and elevation drawings submitted;
    17. Building elevation variances shall be resolved and resubmitted to Planning Commission at the next meeting.

Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

On the motion, all voted aye, and the approval with conditions was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Mr. Syfert asked him if he would be back next month, and Mr. Richards confirmed that he would. Mr. Syfert stated that the meting is November 12th, and Mr. McErlane informed Mr. Richards that he needed to submit his material by the end of the month. The typical submittal date is next Monday, but it will take a little more time than that for you. Usually on resubmittals, we allow to the end of the month. Mr. Richards asked how soon he could get a copy of the motion and conditions. Mr. McErlane answered that the Minutes wonít be available for a couple of weeks, but we can summarize the motion and conditions for you.

Mr. Huddleston said I received a copy of your note back to the Regional Planning Commission Planning Partnership regarding the fee structure. If you didnít receive a copy of it, I brought that to Planing Commission in August, and we referred it to Council. You also had a question whether there was any analysis made of costs. The total subsidized by fee structure cost of the Planning Partnership raised by this agreement is only about $60,000 of the estimated $200-$250,000 total cost of the operation. So it is heavily subsidized by the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission.

I want to publicly acknowledge and thank Steve for the very thoughtful recitation and written itemization of some of the concerns of some of the communities. Was that shared with all the members? Mr. Galster answered that it was just something that I was trying to summarize, what City Councilís feelings were on it, and to try to be as prepared as I could for what I anticipated would be along meeting. Mr. Huddleston added that it was a very worthwhile editorial, and I appreciate his comments; they were thoughtful succinct and right on in many cases. If anybody wants to see that, I am sure that staff can provide him or her with a copy of that report.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 2002

Page Twenty-Three


  2. Mr. Syfert said some of us are going to attend the Planning Commissioners Program October 21st and 22nd, Tom, Dave Steve and myself.

    1. Spirit Halloween Superstore Ė 750 Kemper Commons Ė wall sign
    2. H & R Block Ė 11794 Springfield Pike Ė wall sign

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone would not be present on November 12th. All plan to be present. Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_____________________,2002 _______________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



_____________________,2002 _______________________

Robert Sherry, Secretary